U.S. PIRG - Foodhttp://uspirg.org/topics/food
enEU-US Consumers Hold Meeting on Trade Threatshttp://uspirg.org/blogs/eds-blog/usp/eu-us-consumers-hold-meeting-trade-threats
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-blogref field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden">
<a href="/blogs/usp/eds-blog">Ed&#039;s Blog</a>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-post-date field-type-datetime field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2014-06-23T00:00:00-04:00">Monday, June 23, 2014</span></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author-bio field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/staff/xxp/ed-mierzwinski">Ed Mierzwinski</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<p><strong>Updated: </strong>On Wednesday, TACD member Knowledge Ecology International held a side-meeting on intellectual property in the US, EU trade agreement (TTIP). Here is a <a href="http://keionline.org/node/2024" target="_blank"><strong>blog by KEI's Jamie Love</strong></a> with links to videos of the event.</p>
<p><strong>ORIGINAL POST (with new photo added):</strong> On Tuesday, 24 June, U.S. and European Union members of the PIRG-backed Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (<a href="http://tacd.org" target="_blank"><strong>TACD.org</strong></a>) hold our 15th annual meeting, this time in Washington, DC. We <a href="http://www.uspirg.org/blogs/eds-blog/usp/will-us-trade-deal-europe-eliminate-consumer-protections" target="_blank"><strong>met in Brussels</strong></a> last fall.</p>
<p>The event Tuesday is titled: <a href="http://tacd.org/tacd-stakeholder-forum-2014/" target="_blank"><strong>The TTIP one year on: Consumers mean business.</strong></a></p>
<p>The capacity crowd (yes, it's full but the event will be <a href="https://pewtrusts.webex.com/pewtrusts/j.php?MTID=mc01b044aaeb368385a65d9313e25ddb0" target="_blank"><strong>live-streamed</strong></a> so you can join) will hear government and consumer experts debate whether the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) currently being negotiated between the two massive trading partners is good for consumers, or threatens strong health, safety and privacy laws while unwisely granting corporations some rights and powers of sovereign nations.</p>
<p>On some matters, such as the safety of the financial system, U.S. regulators are very good, while European regulators are pushing to weaken financial standards by making them subject to weak trade laws.</p>
<p>On the other hand, some of what the U.S. side is doing is simply incredible. Take food: Every country in Europe already requires the labeling of genetically modified food. A few go further and even ban genetically-modified food. Vermont PIRG <a href="http://www.vpirg.org/news/your-right-to-know-is-under-attack/" target="_blank"><strong>recently successfully advocated for the nation's first GMO labeling law</strong></a> (a few other states, e.g. Connecticut, have also passed trigger laws that require other neighboring states to act before they take effect).</p>
<p><img alt="" class="media-image media-image-left" height="194" style="float: left; margin: 5px;" width="259" typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/styles/large/public/gmo_pirgtote.jpg?itok=6WwOTS5p" />Not only has the powerful TTIP backer and trade lobby the Grocery Manufacturers Association already sued to overturn the Vermont law, but U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has virtually demanded that all of the<a href="http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2014/06/secretary-vilsack-on-labelling.html" target="_blank"><strong> European food labeling laws</strong></a> be eliminated as part of the proposed TTIP. He claims, falsely, that we have a different philosophy in the United States. Certainly powerful agribiz firms do have a different "we know what's good for you" philosophy, but the American people, in every poll, have overwhelmingly demanded a <a href="http://www.uspirg.org/issues/usp/label-gmo-foods" target="_blank"><strong>right to know</strong></a> what's in their food. Our PIRG campaign seeks not only to label GMOs, but also to <a href="https://secure3.convio.net/engage/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&amp;page=UserAction&amp;id=10817&amp;__utma=1.712841332.1368398890.1403490948.1403560480.421&amp;__utmb=1.32.10.1403560480&amp;__utmc=1&amp;__utmx=-&amp;__utmz=1.1402675652.412.12.utmcsr=google|utmccn=%28organic%29|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=%28not%20provided%29&amp;__utmv=-&amp;__utmk=120639624" target="_blank"><strong>get antibiotics out</strong></a> of our food. See photo at left of tote bag "GMO? I want to know" that PIRG members are carrying to the store.</p>
<p>The TTIP would be a bilateral treaty that affects a lot more than food and the safety of the financial system. Chapters are being negotiated on a broad range of issues that put health and safety laws, consumer protection laws and privacy laws all at risk (in the case of privacy laws, EU consumers are better off, but big American tech firms, from Facebook to Google, want to roll those laws back). The intellectual property and antitrust chapters under negotiation would implicate the price and availability of medicine. Read TACD's <a href="http://tacd.org/ttip-overview/" target="_blank"><strong>series of papers</strong></a> detailing our broad concerns on all these matters, as already presented to the governments, for more details.</p>
<p>Perhaps the biggest, boldest and most brazen play in the TTIP negotiations is the corporate demand to include a provision called Investor-State Dispute Resolution, or ISDS. When nations first began negotiating bilateral investment treaties, over 50 years ago, this provision, allowing corporations to dispute a country's laws in private non-court tribunals, may have made some sense, in some cases. A company from a developed nation would not want to invest in a developing nation without a robust court system.</p>
<p>But today, ISDS provisions in existing treaties are being <a href="http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=5462" target="_blank"><strong>routinely used by foreign subsidiaries of powerful corporations</strong></a> to challenge laws that they don't like, in their own developed home countries. Believe it or not, lobbyists for the <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/blog/investaphobia-and-irrational-fear-investor-state-dispute-settlement" target="_blank"><strong>U.S. Chamber of Commerce</strong></a> and other special interests are claiming that corporations don't get a fair shake in the U.S. courts so ISDS -- elevating corporations to the level of sovereign nations -- must be added to all new treaties.</p>
<p>Yet another problem with the trade negotiations is that the U.S. side, in particular, insists that trade negotiations must be held to purportedly high levels of secrecy; yet although hundreds of industry "advisors" have access to text, the public does not. <a href="http://tacd.org/tacd-joins-call-for-transparency-in-the-ttip/" target="_blank"><strong>TACD has pushed back hard for greater transparency in trade negotiations, especially in the TTIP.</strong></a></p>
<p>We will be participating in Tuesday's events. In my role as U.S. co-chair of the TACD Steering Committee, I will be moderating a plenary panel of distinguished government negotiators and regulators (<a href="http://tacd.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/TACD-Stakeholder-Dialogue-TTIP-one-year-on-Consumers-mean-business-Full-Programme1.pdf" target="_blank"><strong>pdf of full day's program</strong></a>). The event Tuesday is only part of our activities. Along with other TACD members, we participate regularly in other fora and meet with negotiators on a regular basis. After all, consumers mean business. And while we are disappointed with our government's negotiating positions on a variety of matters, as detailed above, we do appreciate that they have an open-door policy and are also willing to engage with us at this and other events.</p>
<p>We started the TACD in 1999 when the US and EU were negotiating various trade rules on a case by case basis. Now, we're engaged in the most important trade negotiations that the two trading partners have ever engaged in. Our role is to make sure that consumers are protected. If consumers win, the economies win.</p>
</div>
<ul class="field field-name-field-term-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden">
<li class="field-item">
<a href="/topics/food" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Food</a> </li>
</ul>
Mon, 23 Jun 2014 22:48:38 +0000edm34831 at http://uspirg.orghttp://uspirg.org/blogs/eds-blog/usp/eu-us-consumers-hold-meeting-trade-threats#commentsConsumer Groups Launch National Push for Supermarkets to Label GMOshttp://uspirg.org/news/usf/consumer-groups-launch-national-push-supermarkets-label-gmos
<div class="field field-name-field-newsrelease-status field-type-text field-label-hidden">
For Immediate Release
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-post-date field-type-datetime field-label-hidden">
<span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2014-03-07T00:00:00-05:00">Friday, March 7, 2014</span>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<p>WASHINGTON, March 7 – Consumers and health advocates launched a national campaign calling on local and regional supermarket chains to label their store-brand products for ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs), on the one year anniversary of Whole Foods’ announcement that it will adopt labeling for all products in its stores. </p>
<p>“Whole Foods took a big step, and it’s time for other supermarkets to deliver for their customers,” said Meghan Hess, Associate Field Director with the U.S. PIRG Education Fund. “Consumers have real concerns about GMOs, including the way they lead to increased pesticide use, and they have a right to know what’s in their food.”</p>
<p>State Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) held events in 16 states on across the country on March 7th and 8th to rally local grassroots supporters, farmers, legislators, and consumer and environmental groups around the campaign. </p>
<p>As part of the events, U.S. PIRG Education Fund also released a report documenting other recent actions companies have taken in response to consumers’ desire for better information about GMO ingredients in their food. In addition to Whole Foods’ commitment to labeling, other recent actions include:</p>
<p>• Chipotle and Ben &amp; Jerry’s announced they will label the food they sell for GMO ingredients, and eventually move towards phasing out those ingredients.</p>
<p>• Both Cheerios and Grape-Nuts are going GMO-free.</p>
<p>• The Non-GMO Project, which offers voluntary GMO labeling, in 2013 saw a 300% year-over-year increase in producer interest.</p>
<p>And just this week, Kroger and Safeway joined other grocery chains, including Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, and Target by announcing they would not sell genetically engineered salmon, even if it’s approved for sale.</p>
<p>“Polls consistently show more than 90% of the public supports labeling,” continued Hess. “It’s just smart business sense for companies to give their customers what they want.”</p>
<p> “Consumers expect transparency from the brands they trust to feed their families,” noted Lucia von Reusner, Shareholder Advocate at Green Century Capital Management. “Labeling GMOs is the logical step for any company hoping to win today's increasingly informed and sophisticated consumer.”</p>
<p>“GMO labeling is a common-sense solution that will help consumers know what’s on their plates, no matter where they do their grocery shopping,” concluded Hess. “On the anniversary of Whole Foods’ commitment, it’s time for other supermarket chains to do the same.”</p>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-term-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden">
<a href="/topics/food" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Food</a>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-subtitle field-type-text field-label-hidden">
Events in 16 States Mark Anniversary of Whole Foods Labeling Commitment
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-organization field-type-text field-label-hidden">
U.S. PIRG Education Fund
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-summary field-type-text-long field-label-hidden">
<p>Consumers and health advocates launched a national campaign calling on local and regional supermarket chains to label their store-brand products for ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs), on the one year anniversary of Whole Foods’ announcement that it will adopt labeling for all products in its stores.</p>
</div>
Fri, 07 Mar 2014 15:50:34 +0000lmurray@pirg.org32616 at http://uspirg.orghttp://uspirg.org/news/usf/consumer-groups-launch-national-push-supermarkets-label-gmos#commentsFood Safety Scares 2013http://uspirg.org/reports/usp/food-safety-scares-2013
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-organization field-type-text field-label-inline clearfix">
<span class="field-label ">
Released by:
</span>
U.S. PIRG Education Fund
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-post-date field-type-datetime field-label-inline clearfix">
<span class="field-label ">
Release date:
</span>
<span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2013-10-31T00:00:00-04:00">Thursday, October 31, 2013</span>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-report-file field-type-file field-label-hidden">
<span class="file"><img class="file-icon" alt="" title="application/pdf" src="/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png" /> <a href="http://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/FoodSafetyScaresReport2013Final.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=830159">FoodSafetyScaresReport2013Final.pdf</a></span>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<p>Over the past few years, Americans have grown accustomed to seeing headlines about tainted food being recalled and pulled off store shelves. These high-profile recalls leave many Americans wondering whether enough is being done to reduce the risk of contaminated food and foodborne illness. And they are right to do so—48 million people get sick from eating tainted food each year, and despite significant costs to our economy and Americans’ public health, the number of such illnesses, particularly from Salmonella, has remained stagnant for at least 5 years.</p>
<p>More needs to be done to protect Americans from the risk of unsafe food. But important rules, standards, and inspections that could significantly improve food safety have been blocked, underfunded, or delayed, allowing the drumbeat of disease outbreaks to continue.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> <strong>Multistate foodborne illness outbreaks between October 2012 and October 2013 caused:</strong><strong></strong> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="Pa5"> </p>
<p> </p>
<ul><li>1,494 foodborne illnesses linked to multistate outbreaks;</li>
</ul><p> </p>
<p> </p>
<ul><li>335 hospitalizations linked to multistate outbreaks;</li>
</ul><p> </p>
<p> <br />
</p>
<ul><li>2 deaths linked to multistate outbreaks;</li>
</ul><p> </p>
<p> </p>
<ul><li>615 incidences of <em>Salmonella </em>linked to multistate outbreaks; and</li>
</ul><p> </p>
<p> <br />
</p>
<ul><li>643 incidences of <em>Cyclospora</em> linked to multistate outbreaks caused by food products.</li>
</ul><p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>This report offers a snapshot look, from October 2012 to October 2013, at multistate foodborne illness outbreaks identified by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Failures in the rules and processes that protect our food supply have led to numerous serious outbreaks over the past year that left many Americans sickened and at least 2 dead. The economic cost of just the multistate outbreaks caused by food products recalled over the past 12 months comes to more than $22 million.</p>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-subtitle field-type-text field-label-hidden">
American Lives at Risk from Unsafe Food
</div>
Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:44:32 +0000jlevin29056 at http://uspirg.orghttp://uspirg.org/reports/usp/food-safety-scares-2013#commentsGroups, Lawmakers Demand Cuts to Ag Subsidies, Deliver Petitions from 278,000 Citizens, 1,000 Small Farmers http://uspirg.org/news/usp/groups-lawmakers-demand-cuts-ag-subsidies-deliver-petitions-278000-citizens-1000-small
<div class="field field-name-field-newsrelease-status field-type-text field-label-hidden">
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-post-date field-type-datetime field-label-hidden">
<span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2013-09-12T00:00:00-04:00">Thursday, September 12, 2013</span>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-author-bio field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/staff/xxp/dan-smith">Dan Smith</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. PIRG joined Representatives Ron Kind (D-WI) and Tom Petri (R-WI), the daughter of a Maryland small farmer, and groups from across the political spectrum to deliver the latest of 278,000 public petitions and 1,000 letters from small farmers calling on Congress to end subsidies to large agribusinesses. These subsidies, which send more than 1 billion dollars a year to crops that end up in junk food ingredients like high-fructose corn syrup, are part of the Farm Bill — which will expire at the end of the month if Congress doesn’t act.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Groups speaking at the event included the National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Environmental Working Group, and the R Street Institute.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">“Thousands of Americans, lawmakers from both parties, and groups from across the political spectrum all agree that it’s time to end wasteful handouts to Big Ag in the Farm Bill,” said U.S. PIRG Tax and Budget Advocate Dan Smith. “Almost anything would be a better use of our tax dollars than sending checks to giant, profitable agribusinesses.”</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">“Farmers and taxpayers across the entire political spectrum know that our agriculture subsidy programs need to be overhauled,” said Congressman Kind. “As the representative of one of the largest agricultural districts in the country, I’m committed to working in a bipartisan fashion to bring real reform to American farm policy so that taxpayers and family farmers are put ahead of big agribusiness.”</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">“Currently, the federal government subsidizes roughly 62% of farmers’ crop insurance premiums at a cost of $9 billion a year, but America’s small farmers receive only 27% of the subsidies,” said Congressman Petri. “That doesn’t seem right to me. We need to put in place reforms that keep a safety net in place for farmers who truly need assistance, but also ensures the program is not exploited—which ends up costing taxpayers a lot of money. I’m glad to be a part of this bipartisan effort to make sensible reforms to the crop insurance program.”</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Since 1995, $292 billion has been spent on agricultural subsidies, with three-quarters of the subsidies going to just four percent of farmers. Over 60 percent of farmers don’t receive any subsidies. Furthermore, these subsidies mainly support just a few commodity crops, including corn and soybeans. </p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Among other uses, food manufacturers process corn and soy crops into additives like high-fructose corn syrup. U.S. PIRG research has found that over $1 billion a year in subsidies ends up going to four common junk food additives – corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, and soy oils.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">"I am disappointed in how our current food system gives large subsidies to giant agribusinesses that don’t need the money, said Sophia Maravell, the daughter of a small organic farmer and Education Director of Brickyard Educational Farm in Potomac, Maryland. “These subsidy programs may help agribusiness giants like Cargill and Monsanto, but they do little for small family farms like mine.”</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">At the press conference U.S. PIRG’s Dan Smith urged Congress to make the following reforms in the final Farm Bill:</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">- End the nearly $5 billion per year “Direct Payments” program, which is known for handing out checks to landowners who don’t even farm and has long been the poster child for wasteful agricultural subsidies. If Congress fails to pass a Farm Bill by the September deadline, this wasteful program should not be part of any extension of the current law.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">- Cut crop insurance subsidies for the wealthiest agribusinesses. The Senate took a positive first step by approving the bipartisan amendment from Senators Durbin and Coburn to reduce subsidies going to farmers making more than $750,000. This limit should be strengthened, but at the minimum it should be kept in the final bill.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">- Enact common sense caps on the crop insurance program so that no agribusiness can receive million dollar checks.</p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing">“It could not be clearer where the public stands on handouts to big agribusiness. Lawmakers should stand with small farmers and ordinary taxpayers by finally putting an end to these wasteful subsidies,” concluded Smith.</p>
<p class="MediumGrid2-Accent11"> </p>
<p class="MediumGrid2-Accent11" align="center"># # #</p>
<p class="MediumGrid2-Accent11"><a href="http://www.uspirg.org/"><em>U.S. PIRG</em></a><em>, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups, is a consumer group that stands up to powerful interests whenever they threaten our health and safety, our financial security, or our right to fully participate in our democratic society.</em><em> </em></p>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-term-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/topics/budget" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Budget</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/topics/food" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Food</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/topics/tax" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Tax</a> </div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-noderef-issues field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden">
<a href="/issues/usp/stop-subsidizing-obesity">Stop Subsidizing Obesity</a>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-subtitle field-type-text field-label-hidden">
Bipartisan Lawmakers, Unlikely Allies Join for Capitol Hill Press Conference
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-organization field-type-text field-label-hidden">
U.S. PIRG
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-summary field-type-text-long field-label-hidden">
<p>Representatives Ron Kind (D-WI) and Tom Petri (R-WI) joined groups from across the political spectrum to deliver petitions and call on Congress to end subsidies to large agribusinesses, which are a part of the Farm Bill that is set to expire at the end of this month. </p>
</div>
Thu, 12 Sep 2013 19:55:56 +0000jwoo27526 at http://uspirg.orghttp://uspirg.org/news/usp/groups-lawmakers-demand-cuts-ag-subsidies-deliver-petitions-278000-citizens-1000-small#commentsAg Subsidies Pay for 20 Twinkies per Taxpayer, But Only Half of an Apple Apiecehttp://uspirg.org/news/usp/ag-subsidies-pay-20-twinkies-taxpayer-only-half-apple-apiece
<div class="field field-name-field-newsrelease-status field-type-text field-label-hidden">
For Immediate Release
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-post-date field-type-datetime field-label-hidden">
<span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2013-07-16T00:00:00-04:00">Tuesday, July 16, 2013</span>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-author-bio field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/staff/xxp/dan-smith">Dan Smith</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div align="center"><strong><br />
One Billion Tax Dollars per Year Subsidize Junk Food Ingredients, Fuel Obesity Epidemic</strong></div>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">Washington, DC - Federal subsidies for commodity crops are subsidizing junk food additives like high-fructose corn syrup at a rate that would buy 20 Twinkies for each taxpayer every year, according to U.S. PIRG's new report, "</span><a style="line-height: 1.538em;" href="http://uspirg.org/reports/usp/apples-twinkies-2013">Apples to Twinkies 2013</a><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">." Meanwhile, subsidies for fresh fruits and vegetables would buy just one half of an apple per taxpayer per year.</span></p>
<p>These subsidies are part of the Farm Bill that expires in September. Both the Farm Bill approved by the U.S. Senate and the one that passed the House last Thursday would continue these subsidies.</p>
<p>"Our food policy has become so distorted that we're actually using tax dollars to subsidize junk food, but this problem has been ignored in the debate over the Farm Bill. Congress needs to either make serious changes to this legislation or reject it entirely," said Dan Smith, Tax and Budget Advocate for U.S. PIRG and report co-author.</p>
<p>Between 1995 and 2012, American taxpayers spent more than $290 billion in agricultural subsidies. The payments are highly concentrated, with 75 percent of the subsidies going to just 3.8 percent of farmers. The subsidies mainly support just a few commodity crops, including corn and soybeans. Among other uses, food manufacturers process corn and soy crops into additives like high-fructose corn syrup and vegetable oil that provide a cheap dose of sweetness and fat to a wide variety of junk food products.</p>
<p>"I am disappointed that our current food system gives large subsidies to junk food ingredients while my family's fresh edamame soybeans and native American flint corn used for cornmeal and baking get barely any subsidies," said Sophia Maravell, the Education Director of <a href="http://brickyardeducationalfarm.org/">Brickyard Educational Farm</a> in Potomac, Maryland, and daughter of a small organic farmer who grows corn and soy.</p>
<p>Among the report's key findings:</p>
<ul><ul><li><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">Between 1995 and 2012, more than $19 billion in tax dollars subsidized four common food additives - corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup, corn starch, and soy oils (better known as hydrogenated vegetable oils). At $7.30 per taxpayer per year, that would buy each taxpayer 20 Twinkies. </span></li>
<li><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">Outside of commodity crops, other agricultural products received very little in federal subsidies. Since 1995, taxpayers spent only $689 million subsidizing apples, which is the only significant federal subsidy of fresh fruits or vegetables. Coming to 26 cents per taxpayer per year, that would buy less than half of one Red Delicious apple. </span></li>
</ul></ul><p>"At a time when childhood obesity rates are sky-high, it's absurd that we're spending even one cent of taxpayer money on junk food, let alone billions," added Smith. "With the Farm Bill before Congress, it's time to end this waste."</p>
<p>"Our tax dollars shouldn't benefit large corporations such as Monsanto and Cargill, and they shouldn't encourage farmers to grow specific varieties of corn and soy that get used for junk food additives that contribute to our nation's high obesity rates," added Maravell.</p>
<p><a href="http://uspirg.org/reports/usp/apples-twinkies-2013">Download the report here.</a></p>
<div align="center"># # #</div>
<p><em>U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups, is a consumer group that stands up to powerful interests whenever they threaten our health and safety, our financial security, or our right to fully participate in our democratic society.</em></p>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-term-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden">
<a href="/topics/food" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Food</a>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-noderef-issues field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden">
<a href="/issues/usp/stop-subsidizing-obesity">Stop Subsidizing Obesity</a>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-organization field-type-text field-label-hidden">
U.S. PIRG
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-summary field-type-text-long field-label-hidden">
<p>Federal subsidies for commodity crops are subsidizing junk food additives like high-fructose corn syrup at a rate that would buy 20 Twinkies for each taxpayer every year, according to U.S. PIRG's new report, "Apples to Twinkies 2013." Meanwhile, subsidies for fresh fruits and vegetables would buy just one half of an apple per taxpayer per year. These subsidies are part of the Farm Bill that expires in September.</p>
</div>
Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:23:35 +0000james26456 at http://uspirg.orghttp://uspirg.org/news/usp/ag-subsidies-pay-20-twinkies-taxpayer-only-half-apple-apiece#commentsApples to Twinkies 2013http://uspirg.org/reports/usp/apples-twinkies-2013
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-ledeimage field-type-image field-label-hidden">
<img typeof="foaf:Image" src="http://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/styles/report-image/public/reports/images/applestotwinkies_cover.gif?itok=RGyxk8R9" width="200" height="260" />
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-organization field-type-text field-label-inline clearfix">
<span class="field-label ">
Released by:
</span>
U.S. PIRG
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-post-date field-type-datetime field-label-inline clearfix">
<span class="field-label ">
Release date:
</span>
<span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2013-07-15T00:00:00-04:00">Monday, July 15, 2013</span>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-nodref-newsrelease field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden">
<a href="/news/usp/ag-subsidies-pay-20-twinkies-taxpayer-only-half-apple-apiece">Ag Subsidies Pay for 20 Twinkies per Taxpayer, But Only Half of an Apple Apiece</a>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-report-file field-type-file field-label-hidden">
<span class="file"><img class="file-icon" alt="" title="application/pdf" src="/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png" /> <a href="http://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Apples_to_Twinkies_2013_USPIRG.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=367624">Apples_to_Twinkies_2013_USPIRG.pdf</a></span>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<p>At a time when America faces high obesity rates and tough federal budget choices, taxpayer dollars are funding the production of junk food ingredients. Since 1995, the government has spent $292.5 billion on agricultural subsidies, $19.2 billion of which have subsidized corn- and soy-derived junk food ingredients.</p>
<p>These subsidies are all the more egregious at a time when America is facing an obesity epidemic. Children are three times more likely to be obese than their counterparts three decades ago. With over 31 percent of the adolescent population now overweight or obese, and estimates of obesity-related medical costs reaching $150 billion per year, it is absurd that the federal government continues to finance the production of sweeteners and oil additives.</p>
<p>The concentrated distribution of subsidy payments further demonstrates how the current system fails to appropriately direct federal dollars. The system disproportionately benefits larger commodity crop producers, sending tax subsidies to large, already-profitable players. These subsidies also do not fund all crops equally. Apples, the only fruit or vegetable to receive significant federal subsidies, garnered only $689 million over the same period.</p>
<p>Had these subsidies gone directly to America’s 146 million taxpayers, the apple subsidies would enable each taxpayer to buy half an apple each year—but the annual junk food subsidies would add up to nearly 20 Twinkies each.</p>
<p><strong>Key findings:</strong></p>
<ul><ul><li>Of the total $292.5 billion allotted in agriculture subsidies, 3.8 percent of farmers collected $178.5 billion, while 62 percent of farms did not receive any federal funds.</li>
<li>Taxpayers spent $84.4 billion on corn production, $8.1 billion of which funded production of corn starch and sweeteners. Of the total domestic corn produced, 9.6 percent ended up in junk food and beverages as sweeteners or thickeners.</li>
<li>Soy subsidies rank fifth on the list of subsidized crops, costing taxpayers $27.8 billion. Since 1995, soy oils have consumed approximately $11.1 billion in taxpayer subsidies.</li>
<li>With the money used to subsidize corn and soy junk food ingredients, the government could buy almost 52 billion Twinkies—enough to circle the Earth 132 times when placed end to end, or meet the caloric needs of the entire U.S. population for 12 days.</li>
</ul></ul>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-subtitle field-type-text field-label-hidden">
Comparing Taxpayer Subsidies for Fresh Produce and Junk Food
</div>
Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:37:50 +0000james26421 at http://uspirg.orghttp://uspirg.org/reports/usp/apples-twinkies-2013#commentsHouse Poised to Approve Bill Continuing Giant Giveaways to Big Agribusinesshttp://uspirg.org/news/usp/house-poised-approve-bill-continuing-giant-giveaways-big-agribusiness
<div class="field field-name-field-newsrelease-status field-type-text field-label-hidden">
For Immediate Release
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-post-date field-type-datetime field-label-hidden">
<span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2013-07-11T00:00:00-04:00">Thursday, July 11, 2013</span>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-author-bio field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/staff/xxp/dan-smith">Dan Smith</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div align="center"><strong><br />
Five Ways the Farm Bill Brings Home the Bacon for Big Ag</strong></div>
<p><em>Statement of Dan Smith, U.S. PIRG Tax and Budget Advocate, on the Farm Bill being voted on by the U.S. House:</em></p>
<p>“U.S. PIRG urges the House to vote NO on the Farm Bill scheduled to be voted on today. Like the Senate’s Farm Bill, this legislation would keep the gravy train flowing for big agribusiness, locking in their unjustified corporate handouts for the next five years. Members of the House should stand firm and reject this bill once again. With Congress focused on how to fix the budget, our elected leaders shouldn’t squander the opportunity to cut off these outrageous giveaways to Big Ag once and for all.</p>
<p>“This bill will continue the current practice of disproportionately subsidizing the largest agribusinesses, which are already profitable and don’t need taxpayer handouts. While the Big Ag lobby claims to stand up for small farmers, 74 percent of these subsidies went to just 4 percent of agribusinesses, with more than 60 percent of farms not even getting a dime.</p>
<p>“A vote for this bill is pure and simple a vote for special interest handouts at the expense of average taxpayers.”</p>
<p><strong>Five Ways the Farm Bill Brings Home the Bacon for Big Ag</strong><br /><strong><br /></strong><strong>Big Ag’s bait and switch</strong></p>
<p>The House Farm bill eliminates the “Direct Payments” program – long the poster child for wasteful agricultural subsidies, known for handing out checks to rich landowners who don’t even farm. But in a political sleight of hand, the bill plows more than half the savings from cutting Direct Payments into a new subsidy program that will continue to give handouts to large agribusinesses that don’t need our tax dollars.</p>
<p>The new Price Loss Coverage program guarantees agribusinesses 85 percent of the revenue they received in previous years, locking in the record high prices of recent years. A study commissioned by the Environmental Working Group found that if prices fell, the new program could cost taxpayers $20 billion more over the next decade than the discredited “Direct Payments” program.</p>
<p><strong>Big profits mean big subsidies</strong></p>
<p>Since 1995, just 4 percent of agribusinesses have made off with three quarters of the subsidies. Yet the House bill does next to nothing to reduce or eliminate subsidies for agribusinesses with high incomes. For millionaire farmers, the checks will keep on coming.</p>
<p><strong>No caps mean million dollar checks</strong></p>
<p>Both the House and Senate bills fail to put any cap on how big a check an agribusiness can receive to help pay its insurance bill. Currently, taxpayers pay over 60 percent of the premiums for insurance that compensates agribusinesses for poor yields, price declines, or both. On top of that, taxpayers pay 15 private insurance companies $1.3 billion to run the program.</p>
<p>Because the program has no caps, 26 agribusinesses have received more than $1 million in a single year, while 80 percent get $5,000 on average, according to a study from the Environmental Working Group.</p>
<p>Instead of reining in this program and capping how much agribusinesses can receive, both the House and Senate bills actually expand it.</p>
<p><strong>Paying to market Big Macs and underwear abroad</strong></p>
<p>The House and Senate bills make no changes to the $200 million per year Market Access Program, which subsidizes ad campaigns for giant agricultural companies and their trade associations. Companies receiving funding have ranged from McDonald’s to Fruit of the Loom. Taxpayer money has even been used to pay for a reality TV show in India to promote cotton. Companies are perfectly capable of buying their own airtime - they don’t need taxpayer dollars to subsidize their ads.</p>
<p><strong>Subsidizing junk food</strong></p>
<p>At a time when America faces an obesity epidemic, billions in subsidies underwrite the production of junk food additives. Between 1995 and 2011, U.S. PIRG research found that $18.2 billion subsidized four common junk food additives, including high fructose corn syrup. That’s enough to buy every kid under 18 eight 2-liter bottles of soda every year. By contrast, the subsidies for apples – the only fruit or vegetable that gets significant subsidies – would pay for less than half of an apple for each taxpayer.</p>
<p>Neither the House nor Senate Farm Bill makes meaningful reforms to correct this imbalance in our food policy.</p>
<div align="center"># # #</div>
<p><em style="line-height: 1.538em;">U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups, is a consumer group that stands up to powerful interests whenever they threaten our health and safety, our financial security, or our right to fully participate in our democratic society.</em></p>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-term-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden">
<a href="/topics/food" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Food</a>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-noderef-issues field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden">
<a href="/issues/usp/stop-subsidizing-obesity">Stop Subsidizing Obesity</a>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-organization field-type-text field-label-hidden">
U.S. PIRG
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-summary field-type-text-long field-label-hidden">
<p>U.S. PIRG urges the House to vote NO on the Farm Bill scheduled to be voted on today. Like the Senate’s Farm Bill, this legislation would keep the gravy train flowing for big agribusiness, locking in their unjustified corporate handouts for the next five years.</p>
</div>
Thu, 11 Jul 2013 04:00:00 +0000james26471 at http://uspirg.orghttp://uspirg.org/news/usp/house-poised-approve-bill-continuing-giant-giveaways-big-agribusiness#commentsHouse Rejects Farm Bill Loaded with Subsidies to Big Agribusinesshttp://uspirg.org/news/usp/house-rejects-farm-bill-loaded-subsidies-big-agribusiness
<div class="field field-name-field-newsrelease-status field-type-text field-label-hidden">
For Immediate Release
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-post-date field-type-datetime field-label-hidden">
<span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2013-06-20T00:00:00-04:00">Thursday, June 20, 2013</span>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-author-bio field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/staff/xxp/dan-smith">Dan Smith</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<p><em>Statement of Dan Smith, U.S. PIRG Tax and Budget Advocate, on the Farm Bill rejected by the U.S. House:</em></p>
<p>“U.S. PIRG applauds the House for rejecting a Farm Bill (H.R. 1947) that would have kept the gravy train flowing for big agribusiness, locking in their unjustified corporate handouts for the next five years. With Congress focused on how to fix the budget, our elected leaders shouldn’t squander the opportunity to cut off these outrageous giveaways to Big Ag once and for all.</p>
<p>“Before the bill failed, the House narrowly rejected even modest amendments to reduce subsidies for the most profitable agribusinesses. The Kind-Petri amendment, which would have cut off certain subsidies for agribusinesses with high incomes, failed with a narrow 208-217 vote.</p>
<p>“The rejected Farm Bill would have continued the current practice of disproportionately subsidizing the largest agribusinesses, which are already profitable and don’t need taxpayer handouts. While the Big Ag lobby claims to stand up for small farmers, just 4 percent of agribusinesses eat up 74 percent of these subsidies, with more than 60 percent of farms never seeing a dime.</p>
<p>“The failure of this Farm Bill is a wake-up call: The House now has the chance to make serious changes to this legislation. Our elected leaders should stand up for taxpayers, not Big Ag, by ending wasteful subsidies once and for all.”</p>
<div>
<div align="center"># # #</div>
<p><em>U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups, is a consumer group that stands up to powerful interests whenever they threaten our health and safety, our financial security, or our right to fully participate in our democratic society.</em></p></div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-term-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden">
<a href="/topics/food" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Food</a>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-noderef-issues field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden">
<a href="/issues/usp/stop-subsidizing-obesity">Stop Subsidizing Obesity</a>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-organization field-type-text field-label-hidden">
U.S. PIRG
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-summary field-type-text-long field-label-hidden">
<p>The failure of this Farm Bill is a wake-up call: The House now has the chance to make serious changes to this legislation. Our elected leaders should stand up for taxpayers, not Big Ag, by ending wasteful subsidies once and for all.</p>
</div>
Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:46:09 +0000james25921 at http://uspirg.orghttp://uspirg.org/news/usp/house-rejects-farm-bill-loaded-subsidies-big-agribusiness#commentsHouse Narrowly Rejects Modest Bipartisan Measure to Limit Subsidies for Largest Agribusinesseshttp://uspirg.org/news/usp/house-narrowly-rejects-modest-bipartisan-measure-limit-subsidies-largest-agribusinesses
<div class="field field-name-field-newsrelease-status field-type-text field-label-hidden">
For Immediate Release
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-post-date field-type-datetime field-label-hidden">
<span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2013-06-20T00:00:00-04:00">Thursday, June 20, 2013</span>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-author-bio field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/staff/xxp/dan-smith">Dan Smith</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div align="center"><strong><br />
Five Ways the New Farm Bill Brings Home the Bacon for Big Ag</strong></div>
<p><em>Statement of Dan Smith, U.S. PIRG Tax and Budget Advocate, on the Farm Bill being voted on by the U.S. House:</em></p>
<p>“U.S. PIRG opposes the House Farm Bill (H.R. 1947). Like the Senate’s proposed Farm Bill, this legislation would keep the gravy train flowing for big agribusiness, locking in their unjustified corporate handouts for the next five years. With Congress focused on how to fix the budget, our elected leaders shouldn’t squander the opportunity to cut off these outrageous giveaways to Big Ag once and for all.</p>
<p>“The House rejected even modest amendments to reduce subsidies for the most profitable agribusinesses. The Kind-Petri amendment, which would have cut off certain subsidies for agribusinesses with high incomes, failed with a narrow 208-217 vote.</p>
<p>“This Farm Bill will continue the current practice of disproportionately subsidizing the largest agribusinesses, which are already profitable and don’t need taxpayer handouts. While the Big Ag lobby claims to stand up for small farmers, just 4 percent of agribusinesses eat up 74 percent of these subsidies, with more than 60 percent of farms never seeing a dime.</p>
<p>“Congress needs to make serious changes to this legislation or reject it entirely. Our elected leaders should stand up for taxpayers, not Big Ag.”</p>
<p><big><strong>Five Ways the Farm Bill Brings Home the Bacon for Big Ag</strong></big></p>
<p><strong>Big Ag’s Bait and Switch</strong></p>
<p>The House Farm bill eliminates the “Direct Payments” program — long the poster child for wasteful agricultural subsidies, known for handing out checks to rich landowners who don’t even farm. But in a political sleight of hand, the bill plows more than half the savings from cutting Direct Payments into a new subsidy program that will continue to do more of the same by giving handouts to large agribusinesses that don’t need our tax dollars.</p>
<p>This new “Price Loss Coverage” program guarantees agribusinesses 85 percent of the revenue they received in these previous years, locking in the record-high prices of recent years. A study commissioned by the Environmental Working Group found that if prices fall, the new program could cost taxpayers $20 billion more over the next decade than the discredited Direct Payments program.</p>
<p><strong>Big profits Mean Big Subsidies</strong></p>
<p>Since 1995, just 4 percent of agribusinesses have made off with three-quarters of the subsidies. Yet the House bill rejected modest measures to reduce or eliminate subsidies for agribusinesses with high incomes. For millionaire farmers, the checks will keep on coming.</p>
<p><strong>No Caps Means Million-Dollar Checks</strong></p>
<p>Both the House and Senate rejected bipartisan measures to put any sort of cap on how big a check an agribusiness can receive to help pay its insurance bill. Currently, taxpayers pay over 60 percent of the premiums for agribusiness insurance, which compensates them for poor yields, price declines, or both. On top of that, taxpayers pay 15 private insurance companies $1.3 billion to run these programs.</p>
<p>Because the program has no caps, just 26 agribusinesses have received more than $1 million in a single year, while 80 percent of farms get $5,000 on average, according to a study from the Environmental Working Group.</p>
<p>Instead of reining in this program and capping how much agribusinesses can receive, both the House and Senate bills actually expand it.</p>
<p><strong>Paying to Market Big Macs and Underwear Abroad</strong></p>
<p>The House and Senate bills make no changes to the $200-million-per-year Market Access Program, which subsidizes ad campaigns for giant agricultural companies and their trade associations. The House strongly rejecteded an amendment to end this program. Companies receiving this funding have ranged from McDonald’s to Fruit of the Loom. Taxpayer money has even been used to pay for a reality TV show in India to promote cotton. Companies are perfectly capable of buying their own airtime — they don’t need taxpayer dollars to subsidize their ads.</p>
<p><strong>Subsidizing Junk Food</strong></p>
<p>At a time when America faces an obesity epidemic, billions in subsidies underwrite the production of junk food additives. Between 1995 and 2011, U.S. PIRG research found that $18.2 billion subsidized four common junk food additives, including high-fructose corn syrup. That’s enough to buy every kid under 18 in the U.S. eight 2-liter bottles of soda every year. By contrast, the subsidies for apples — the only fruit or vegetable that gets significant subsidies — would pay for less than half of an apple for each taxpayer every year.</p>
<p>Neither the House nor Senate Farm Bill makes meaningful reforms to correct this imbalance in our food policy.</p>
<div align="center"># # #</div>
<p><em style="line-height: 1.538em;">U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups, is a consumer group that stands up to powerful interests whenever they threaten our health and safety, our financial security, or our right to fully participate in our democratic society.</em></p>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-term-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden">
<a href="/topics/food" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Food</a>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-noderef-issues field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden">
<a href="/issues/usp/stop-subsidizing-obesity">Stop Subsidizing Obesity</a>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-organization field-type-text field-label-hidden">
U.S. PIRG
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-summary field-type-text-long field-label-hidden">
<p>U.S. PIRG opposes the House Farm Bill (H.R. 1947). Like the Senate’s proposed Farm Bill, this legislation would keep the gravy train flowing for big agribusiness, locking in their unjustified corporate handouts for the next five years. The House rejected even modest amendments to reduce subsidies for the most profitable agribusinesses. The Kind-Petri amendment, which would have cut off certain subsidies for agribusinesses with high incomes, failed with a narrow 208-217 vote. </p>
</div>
Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:13:06 +0000james25916 at http://uspirg.orghttp://uspirg.org/news/usp/house-narrowly-rejects-modest-bipartisan-measure-limit-subsidies-largest-agribusinesses#commentsUnlikely Allies Voice Opposition to House Farm Billhttp://uspirg.org/news/usp/unlikely-allies-voice-opposition-house-farm-bill
<div class="field field-name-field-newsrelease-status field-type-text field-label-hidden">
For Immediate Release
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-post-date field-type-datetime field-label-hidden">
<span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2013-06-17T00:00:00-04:00">Monday, June 17, 2013</span>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-author-bio field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/staff/xxp/dan-smith">Dan Smith</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<p>WASHINGTON – U.S. PIRG joined with taxpayer and environmental groups from across the political spectrum to voice shared opposition to much of the Farm Bill being considered by the House of Representatives. The other organizations present included the Environmental Working Group, American Enterprise Institute, R Street Institute, Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, National Black Farmers Association, and Defenders of Wildlife.</p>
<p>U.S. PIRG Tax and Budget Advocate Dan Smith delivered the following remarks:</p>
<p>“The Farm Bill passed by the U.S. Senate is nothing more than a giant handout to the largest, most profitable corporate agribusinesses. And Big Ag does even better under the current House bill. Big agribusiness and their allies in Congress claim the legislation makes real reforms to agricultural subsidies, but that couldn’t be further from the truth.</p>
<p>“Supporters of the Farm Bill point to the elimination of the “Direct Payments” program – long the poster child for wasteful agricultural subsidies, known for handing out checks to rich landowners who don’t even farm. But in a political sleight of hand, the bill plows more than half the taxpayer savings from cutting the Direct Payments program into a new subsidy program that will continue to give handouts to large agribusinesses that don’t need our tax dollars. </p>
<p>“The House bill fails to even include the very minor changes the Senate made to a subsidy program that allows 10,000 farmers to snap up $100,000 each, and some to get over a million.</p>
<p>“Since 1995, just 4 percent of agribusinesses have made off with three quarters of the subsidies. On top of that waste, billions in subsidies actually underwrite the production of junk food additives, at a time when America faces an obesity epidemic. Between 1995 and 2011, U.S. PIRG research found that $18.2 billion subsidized four common junk food additives, including high fructose corn syrup. That’s enough to buy every kid under 18 eight 2-liter bottles of soda every year. By contrast, the subsidies for apples – the only fruit or vegetable that gets significant subsidies – would pay for less than half of an apple for each taxpayer.</p>
<p>“With Congress focused on fixing the budget while continuing to fund public priorities, the last thing our elected leaders should do is continue handing out billions to profitable agribusinesses. Congress needs to make serious changes to the Farm Bill or reject it entirely.”</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="line-height: 1.538em;"># # #</span></p>
<p><em style="line-height: 1.538em;">U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups, is a consumer group that stands up to powerful interests whenever they threaten our health and safety, our financial security, or our right to fully participate in our democratic society.</em></p>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-term-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden">
<a href="/topics/food" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Food</a>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-noderef-issues field-type-node-reference field-label-hidden">
<a href="/issues/usp/stop-subsidizing-obesity">Stop Subsidizing Obesity</a>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-organization field-type-text field-label-hidden">
U.S. PIRG
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-shared-summary field-type-text-long field-label-hidden">
<p>U.S. PIRG joined with taxpayer and environmental groups from across the political spectrum to voice shared opposition to much of the Farm Bill being considered by the House of Representatives. The Farm Bill passed by the U.S. Senate is nothing more than a giant handout to the largest, most profitable corporate agribusinesses. And Big Ag does even better under the current House bill.</p>
</div>
Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:09:23 +0000james25786 at http://uspirg.orghttp://uspirg.org/news/usp/unlikely-allies-voice-opposition-house-farm-bill#comments